Sartrean Existentialism in Existentialism is a Humanism

Jean-Paul Sartre (um 1950) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Existentialism is a Humanism is a very concise work written by Jean-Paul Sartre, a major player in the Atheistic Existential movement. The work was intended as a lecture but was published for readers to better understand what Sartre meant by Existentialism, since he makes it very clear at the outset that Existentialism, or what he means by such a thing, is misrepresented. Existentialism is a humanism, he tells us. What is a humanism? A humanism, here used, means a philosophic outlook on man that has mankind – and the good thereof – in it’s interest. A humanism is concerned with the value of mankind, and it’s purpose is to highlight and emphasize this value. Sartre is suspicious of humanism in this sense, at least as he saw it during his life because it ascribed a  certain value to man that implied he had a nature that we could all be aware of; yet, he wants to point out that his philosophy does emphasize, not the value of man, but of his power and that his destiny is purely in his hands.

Critics have suggested that Existentialism (Sartre’s Existentialism) is a bleak, depressing, and pessimistic outlook on mankind and his earthly enterprise. It offers little hope, if any, and some have suggested that Existentialists have lost the ability to find the innocence and joy in even a child’s smile. Thus, it cannot be a true humanism. Sartre tell us this is the result of poor assumption and misunderstanding of Existentialist terminology (like “abandonment”, “anguish” or “despair” which imply to Sartre’s readers a very harsh and empty reality that man must encounter). The purpose of this work will be to clear up bad conclusions about Existentialism based on misunderstandings about it and the terminology of this discipline.

Firstly, Sartre tells us that Existentialism is variegated – there are Christian Existentialists and Atheist Existentialists, and they differ greatly. He doesn’t explain what the Christian Existentialist is; rather, he only wishes to clarify what he represents before he moves on to clarify anything else. I’ve already alluded to the fact that he describes himself as a Atheistic Existentialist, which one can gather easily that this outlook will disband from any belief in God as something that actually exists. Much like his modern predecessors, he wishes to eliminate more ancient conceptions of man, especially that of “nature” or “essence”. A nature – or essence, being used as interchangeable terminology here – is that which defines a thing; it sets a thing apart from other existing things. It is precisely the “what” of a thing. When we ask “What is that?” we are looking to understand a thing’s essence or nature. What does it do? What is it? These sorts of questions isolate a thing’s essence and incidentally aid us in understanding the things of our experience.

It has long been thought by both the “ancient” and “medieval” philosophers – not favorable depictions in my opinion, since it implies that such thinkers are outdated and having nothing to contribute anymore – that two fundamental principles made up reality: essence and existence. The particular or individual things we see and experience in the world around us are defined by certain characteristics, a nature or essence, which compels them to act and exist in their own unique way (that way, again, is defined by the essence). The essence is something out intellect is naturally, or by nature, seeking to get to. It tells us what things are, and through these essences we come to know things; that is, we develop knowledge of reality. Sartre gives an example of nature in his book by using an example of a paper knife. A paper knife is something that has, as a nature, the activity of cutting open letters for example. This is what it was intended to do. We understand this about the paper knife, and we understand something similar in other things we encounter as well.

The nature of the paper knife preceded it’s existence, Sartre tells us. Presumably before the very first paper knife was created, the purpose for the object existed in the mind of the one who wished to create it. Likewise, God creates man in a similar fashion man creates a paper knife. The nature or essence of man – what he is – exists in the Divine intellect before the existence of man just as the concept and purpose of the knife existed in the mind of man before he created it consequently bringing it into reality. What if God doesn’t exist, though?

God doesn’t exist for Sartre. He takes this for granted by implying that the modern philosophic campaign has suppressed and defeated this notion. So, the essence of modern philosophy is a philosophy without God, unlike others before it. Sartre offers us no real argument to accept that God does not exist, suggesting that if you’re a modern thinking person you surely wouldn’t believe in such a thing. He goes onto say that even if God does exist it would make no real difference

If God does not exist, he says, then there is at least one being who’s existence precedes its essence. This is the very fundamental core – the very locus – of Existentialism, or the kind he is trying to illuminate for us in this work. Remember that throughout history people have tended to believe in the notion of essences – essences of paper knives and human beings for example – and these essences were the very qualities that made these things the kind of things they are as opposed to other existing things. Someone intended these things to be this way, much like the creator of the paper knife, or stapler, or fork, intended it to be the kind of thing it is. Thus, before these things existed the essence was present in the creators mind. If God does not exist, then no essence precedes existence for the supposed creations of God. Thus, no essence for man; man is an accident of chance, and chance does not give essences. Existence precedes essence.

This is what Sartre means when he says that man “shows up” or emerges on the scene. He just appears one day and is aware of himself – he is aware of his existence and himself. What is man? We ask this sort of question, don’t we? There is nothing we can look to that can give us an answer, though; and, Sartre says there is nothing internal nor external that will give us any meaning. We must choose what we wish to be and in so choosing we are creating man. We are giving him an “essence”; giving him a specific meaning. We are doomed to determine what man should be, because no essence precedes our existence to determine this for us. Have you elected to be a rational person? One who is faithful, controlled and just? One who is inclined to religious sentiment? Perhaps you find that there is no God and that man has no inclination towards the religious life. Man is an animal with instincts that must be satisfied at all cost, and the repression of these instincts is detrimental to our health. Man’s happiness consists in the satisfaction of his urges. Whatever way you see man, through your own free choice, you have elected to see man this way. Man is nothing, properly speaking. You make man what he is by choosing to see him in this way or that, by living and believing him to be this way rather than that way. There is nothing outside you or within you – no God or essence – that can justify your choice for man to be this way. Your choice is neither right or wrong, strictly speaking. It is just a choice, one you have clearly made (if you’re reading this or his book) Sartre tell us. In creating man you create an image of how man ought to be. This image is how you universally see man. What you elect man to be by choosing things for your self is what you elect all men to be, which permits people to say “you’re wrong” or “you’re right” – not in any objective way – but based on our own subjectivity. We freely choose man to be this or that by choosing, in our life, to be a specific way. In so doing, we create a concept of man and how he ought to be. This leads us to make judgments of other human beings in our lives insofar as they add up to our concept of man (the one we have created).

What this means is that we are responsible for what man, in every way possible, will be. I’m responsible for what man is, both individually (myself) and for everyone else (universally) in my choosing what I will be. Sartre says if a person chooses marriage, for example, we are not only committing our self to the practice of monogamy but we are committing everyone to this practice, because this is what we are choosing man to be, what man does, the kind of thing he is; and, these things not only apply to me as a man but they apply to everyone who is a man; because, what we think is best for our self as a man will be best for anything that is a man. So, as we determine the kind of meaning we have, we are giving meaning to the kind of thing we are, which is a man; and, others who are this sort of thing have to bear the consequences of our choices. 

We these clarifications of Existentialism, Sartre now makes an effort to clear up specific terms used by Existentialists. Man is in “anguish”, Sartre tells us; but, what is anguish? We should call this existential anguish, because it’s meaning is derived from what this philosophical position gives it. Anguish flows right out of what I was just writing about above; that is, the responsibility to choose, not only for me, but for all men. Since our choices are the building blocks for the creation that is man, and since our choices for our self apply to all – because what we think to be best for our self will consequently be best for all men – anguish is the result of what happens when we become aware of this great responsibility. Remember, as the creator of the paper knife gave it a nature as he began creating it, so we give a nature to man as we begin, through our choices, to define what kind of thing he is. This begins with our self, but that very concept of “man” that begins with our self with also apply to others who are men. More precisely, anguish is the awareness that our choices are for all and we – and we alone – are responsible for this. An example might be a commander that must give the order to bomb a near by battle zone. He can’t be sure that his own men won’t be bombed, although he hopes they’ve evacuated in enough time. He decision not to bomb this town because, for whatever reason, his men may still be in the battle zone may cost others their lives, if he doesn’t not eliminate this threat right now. His choice will effect someone, not only himself. He feels the weight of a great responsibility that nobody else is presently sharing but himself. On a more general level Sartre tells us this is similar to what we are all doing when we choice this or that to be something good (or not good) for our self and consequently for all men. We can’t be sure how our choices for what man ought to be will play out and how they will effect our self and others, and what follows is a great weight of responsibility that Sartre calls “anguish”.

What about “abandonment”? Abandonment also comes out of this notion of “existence precedes essence”. If there is no God, then we have nothing to look to for verification; and, if there is no internal essence that gives us a certain meaning before hand, then again we have nothing to refer to that says “Yes, this is what I should be doing, because this is what I am” or “This is what God says is right”. We are alone in our choosing. Nothing justifies or grounds our choices. No code, no institution, no truth. True, codes and institutions are erected; but, these things have been erected by men who have determined what they think man ought to be. Their conclusions are not any more adequate or viable than any other view that other men have determined as best. Once again, there is nothing outside our self that can justify our choices and yet choices must be made if we live. This is “abandonment”: I’m choosing “blindly” so to speak, with no reference of anything that has any objective meaning outside myself that can justify the choices I make. I’m charged with the duty of making choices all on my own with my own powers and abilities. Nobody else can make them for me. “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permissible.” This quote of Dostoevsky Sartre uses to illuminate that nothing is good in itself – anything can be chosen as something good; but, what is chosen as good might end up destroying us or hurting others. We can never know, really. This goes back to the anguish we face, too.

What of “despair”? Sartre tell us this is a simple concept, one that means we cannot bend the world to our own will. We may wish for particular outcomes in life, like a person to be faithfully our spouse for our entire life. One day this person leaves and we’re left in turmoil. Perhaps we devote our life to a cause: ending world hunger. But, perhaps one day men no longer see this as a thing that ought to be chosen. So, our choices may end up meaning nothing after we’re gone. Maybe tomorrow even. Who knows? That’s the point! We can never be sure whether our choices will ever be respected and, if they are, how long they have until they’re forgotten. Our choices aren’t truly or intrinsically good. They’re just something we’ve deliberated about in life, and in time they may come to mean nothing to anyone. Simply put, things change and other people, as history has shown, erect newer views on mankind and what is good and bad. All the work we do in life may come to ruin and this is the despair that accompanies all this freedom of choice we must bear. The only thing we can control are our very own choices – and that’s it. Whatever else we devote our self to, whatever wishes we have for change, whatever causes we take up, or whatever hopes we have for other people cannot be controlled. The only thing we can be sure of is that we must choose, but as for the rest there is no guarantee or hope for anything. Causes die away, people move on, and wishes are sometimes never granted. We must limit our self to what we can be sure of and that is our own choice – for all else there is no real hope for it being any way we want it to or not. We can chose to make our wishes a reality, or further a cause, or have friendships but we must have no illusions that we can do anything more than make these choices to do all we can in these regards; but, tomorrow a cause may die or a person may betray us. We can’t do anything about this and so our choices can seem to be in vain at times and this is despair.

Sartre wishes to tell his critics that his is a philosophy of humanism, because no other philosophy puts so much responsibility and power in the hands of mankind than his. He is ultimately responsible for what he will be come. True, it is daunting; but, nonetheless, it resides fully with him to do what he can to be the best that he can. This is his task and nothing or nobody can take this task from him. If he destroys himself, he has none to blame but himself; and, if he is successful, then he is so because of his choices and his alone. Everything depends on him, and since through his action he can be just about anything he wants Sartre finds this to be quite an optimistic approach to man.

I must admit that there is something attractive about Sartre’s writings. Perhaps because Existentialism has been so influential over the last century these influences have some how imbedded themselves in me by teachers and role models in my life. I can’t say for sure. There are clear problems with his theory, though.

Existence is not a thing, properly speaking. We say that things – or essences if you prefer (which you probably don’t prefer) – exist. This tree exists, or that stone exists, or that white cat exists, or this chair exists. But never do we say that there is just existence existing over there. Something exists. In truth, essences and existence are never apart from one another. Essence never precedes existence, even in the mind of a creator, like God for example. This essence must have some sort of existence in the creators mind, else is just wouldn’t be there at all to even be thought of. What is existence if it is not attributed to something in the first place? Well, there just isn’t anything there at all. In truth, they’re always together in some way. So, existence doesn’t precede essence. This is truly to ignore the absurd. What exists? Existence is not a thing that exists; again, things exist. Existence is that which actualizes a thing or essence; it’s the cause of it being a real thing. How can existence be there before the things that it actualizes or makes real? Neither precede one or the the other but both exist simultaneously in some fashion. Still, Sartre cannot seem to escape from essences as he often refers to man as a thing that defines himself – this is what man does by nature. He ascribes an essence to man that is objectively universal. It is not that he has created man to be this kind of thing him self; no, he has written a work to tell us that man is the kind of thing he says he is in his lecture. Whether you see man as this way or that, he is always – according to Sartre – a thing that defines and chooses what man is to be. This prepossesses an preceding essence, which is the very thing he has denied throughout his work.

Yet, Sartre is no fool. I value his work here and think it can be reconciled to a particular aspect of mankind, namely his “second-nature”. A second nature is created and consists of the habits we elect to have in our life. Another name for this is a “character” or “personality”. A second nature is not a nature properly speaking. As Sartre has already mentioned, a nature is something set and fixed. It defines what the thing is. But, a persons character or personality is like a nature, in that once it is erected, through our own choices, it is hard to alter. Habits make this nature up, and as we all know habits are hard to dispense with. The second nature then functions like what we properly mean by a nature. Fish, by nature, have the ability to breath underwater. The eye, by nature, detects color. These are the proper functions, activities, or essence of the things just listed. A fish doesn’t choose to breath under water anymore than we need to choose to see color if our eye is open – these things just do what it is in their natures to do. Once a second nature is created through a persons choice, the habits of this nature are done without choice or deliberation but are something we just do. A fish just breathes under water – it doesn’t think about doing this, it just does it. The liar just lies, the thief just steals, and the intemperate man just does intemperate things. We do bear the responsibility of this second nature and there is a sense of anguish and despair that comes along with it. When we conceptualize our self after choosing to be this person or that, we must confront that, whatever we are in that moment, we have chosen to be it. Addiction, theft, murder, etc. We elected to be this man; and, it is up to us to change this man. There is a sort of anguish, a sort of burden or responsibility, that comes with this. We’re also ignorant creatures at times and the old adage can often ring true: “I wish I knew then what I know now”. There seems to be an element of despair that comes along with this, too. Our choices, at one time, seemed so right…but looking back how wrong we were. There is a sense of abandonment in our life at times. When we’re lost, without any convictions, unsure of what is true or false, right or wrong, we our left, to a certain degree, with a sense of abandonment. Sometimes what we think is right just isn’t and we detect that we do have a responsibility to figure out what is right on our own, to a certain degree. I can’t agree with all of what Sartre means by abandonment, because I do believe in God and the reality of essences. What of despair? Sure, we experience despair when we choose to create this second nature I spoke of above. When I was a teenager I though my girlfriend would be with me forever; after all, we made pacts and swore that we would stay with one another; you know, all the sufficient requirements. The truth is that this never happened and I couldn’t even say where she is or what she is doing now. Sometimes we can’t know the outcome of our choices, what will result, what will materialize, or what won’t. Sometimes we do just have to “see what happens” and this does bring about a sort of despair. But, this all applies to a “second nature”. I think Sartre is wrong that existence precedes essence, and I see that he ascribes to man an essence that is objective and precedes the existence he says it doesn’t. His Existentialism has some flaws, but I think maybe – and I was just spouting of at the mouth above – some aspects of his philosophy can be applied to “second natures”.